“The human body is made of skin, bone and sinew, and it is not always that the body can keep pace with the spirit.”
This poignant remark was made by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, as they upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) order granting disability pension to an Army veteran.
The judgment focused on the core issue of whether the Review Medical Board (RMB) had sufficiently proved that the soldier’s disability—Diabetes Mellitus Type II—was not attributable to or aggravated by military service. The Court held that the onus was on the Board to justify this, especially when the illness arose during service.
Read also: Delhi High Court: Woman’s Suicide Outside Matrimonial Home Still Counts As Dowry Death
Case Background
- The respondent was enrolled in the Army on August 5, 1985.
- He served continuously until August 31, 2015, when he was discharged after 30 years and 27 days.
- On September 19, 2015, the RMB confirmed a 20% permanent disability for life.
- He claimed to have contracted Diabetes while posted in Shillong in 2015, having had no health issues before joining.
As per the Commanding Officer under whom the respondent served from June 5, 2013, there were no prior signs of disability or any placement under a low medical category. It was also noted that the soldier’s duties did not involve extreme stress or strain.
Despite all this, the Review Medical Board declared that the disability was not linked to military service, and denied disability pension, even though they clarified that the disease was neither pre-existing nor due to the soldier’s negligence or misconduct.
The respondent challenged the decision before the AFT. On July 16, 2024, the Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in UOI v. Ram Avtar and held that the respondent was entitled to disability pension at 20%, rounded off to 50% for life.
Aggrieved by the AFT's ruling, the Union of India filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court.
The Court examined multiple previous rulings including:
- Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India
- UOI v. Rajbir Singh
- Sukhvinder Singh v. UOI
After thoroughly reviewing the Review Medical Board Report, the Court noted that the illness was not pre-existing and there was no finding of negligence or misconduct by the soldier.
“The Medical Board failed to justify how the disability wasn’t linked to military service. Merely mentioning that the soldier was in a peace posting isn’t enough.”
The Bench observed that no clear reasons were provided by the Board to disprove the service connection.
The Court also dealt with changes introduced under the 2008 Entitlement Rules. It acknowledged that under these rules, a disease occurring during service is not automatically assumed to be attributable to service. However, Rule 7 clearly states:
“Ordinarily the claimant will not be called upon to prove the condition of entitlement...”
The Bench clarified:
- If a claim is filed within 15 years of discharge, the burden lies on the Military Establishment, not the officer.
- The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the word “ordinarily” weakened the protection offered by Rule 9 of the earlier 1981 Rules.
“The entire Rule must be read as a whole. Even with the modified language, the duty to disprove entitlement falls on the establishment when the claim is made within time.”
The Court emphasized that if the Medical Board cannot identify a cause for the illness unrelated to service, then the assumption must favor the soldier.
“Stressful living conditions in the military can aggravate diseases like Diabetes. Just because the soldier was posted in a peace area does not eliminate the possibility of service-related aggravation.”
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Medical Board had failed to discharge its burden and that the soldier was rightly entitled to the disability pension as per AFT’s judgment.
Case Title: Union Of India versus Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, Sr. PC for UOI with Ms. Samiksha with Major Anish Murlidhar
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. U.S. Maurya, Adv.
